ArticleScientific reports2025
Evaluation of safety and efficacy of Tirofiban injection for treating acute ischemic stroke beyond standard time window.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Association of a platelet function testing-guided intensified antiplatelet strategy with thromboembolic events after EP2 stent-assisted coil embolization in patients with unruptured intracranial aneurysms.Frontiers in neurology · 2026Article
- Tirofiban combined with aspirin for branch atheromatous disease: a propensity score-matched study.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
- Clinical outcomes and bleeding events associated with tirofiban combined with intravenous alteplase in acute ischaemic stroke: a retrospective single-center study.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To evaluate the safety and efficacy of tirofiban in the treatment of acute ischemic stroke (AIS). Clinical data of 152 AIS patients with small vessel occlusion admitted in 2023 were retrospectively analyzed. These patients did not receive intravenous thrombolysis and endovascular treatment within 72 h of onset. Patients were divided into two groups (n = 76 each group): a dual antiplatelet group (aspirin + clopidogrel for 14 days, followed by aspirin alone) and a tirofiban group (dual antiplatelet therapy plus tirofiban). Neurological deficits and functional outcomes were assessed before treatment, on day 7, and day 90. Serum hs-CRP and IL-6 levels were measured prior to treatment and on day 7. Symptom aggravation, symptomatic bleeding, and mortality within 90 days were also recorded. Baseline characteristics of the two groups were comparable. Tirofiban treatment significantly improved mRS scores from baseline to day 7 (t = 5.94, p < 0.001) and day 90 (t = 5.67, p < 0.001) (F = 53.13, p < 0.001), with improvements persisting after adjusting for baseline scores (F = 32.56, p < 0.001). Moreover, tirofiban treatment significantly reduced NIHSS scores at days 7 (mean difference = - 0.97 (95% CI: - 1.53, - 0.41); t = 3.57, p < 0.001) and 90 (mean difference = - 0.82 (95% CI: - 1.29, - 0.34); t = 3.97, p < 0.001) and increased Barthel Index scores at days 7 (mean difference = 9.8 (95% CI: 4.3, 15.3); t = - 3.14, p = 0.002) and 90 (mean difference = 11.7 (95% CI: 6.2, 17.2); t = - 4.41, p < 0.001), indicating greater functional independence. No significant differences were observed between the two groups in inflammatory markers (hs-CRP and IL-6), intracranial hemorrhage, or mortality. However, there was a trend toward a higher rate of deterioration in the dual antiplatelet group (13.4% vs. 5.6%). Tirofiban combined with conventional treatment significantly improves neurological deficits and disease outcomes in AIS patients without increasing the risk of bleeding and mortality.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.